PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

                       Dated this the 30^th day of December 2011

                                                                                 Filed on : 11-08-2011

Present :

          Shri. A  Rajesh,                                                     President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.                                   Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma,                                           Member

C.C. No. 435/2011

     Between

Hashim P.M,                                    :        Complainant

35/1586 A South Janatha road,            (Party-in-person)

Palarivattom, Cochin 682 025.

.

                                                And

 1. Levis Store, Cochin,                  :         Opposite parties

     Suncorp Retail Pvt. Ltd.,                      (party-in-person)

     #39/2938/A Modayil Centre

     Point, Warriam road Junction,

     M.G. Road, Kochi-682 016.

2. Levi Strauss India,

    No. 17/1-1 4^th FLr Raheja Plaza

    Commissariat road,

    Bangalore-560 025,

    Karnataka, India.

                                          O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

          The short facts leading to this complaint are the following.

          Complainant purchased a jeans from 1^st opposite party stores who is the franchisee of the 2^nd opposite party company at the price of Rs. 1,680/-.  To the complainants  surprise, he noticed a tear in the garment within  days of the purchase.  When it was brought to the shop for its replacement, the request was turned down by them holding that the goods sold on discount could not be exchanged. Even if attempts were made to bring the matter to the concerned authorities, the response was luke warm.  When  the complainant directly approached 1^st opposite party, they expressed their willingness to exchange without taking into account the discount even though he had approached  the shop within seven days from the date of purchase as stipulated in the bill.  Now the torn jeans is in the possession of the complainant.  Several reliefs are demanded in the complaint including  exchange of the jeans at the price he had actually paid. 

2.     2^nd opposite party filed version.

They have denied the allegations in its entirety.  However they have expressed their willingness to exchange the garment at the price of Rs. 1,680/- and also pay the expenses incurred on registering the complaint as a gesture of good will.

3.                Complainant has no oral evidence.  Exts. A1 to A4 marked on his side.  Opposite parties also have  no oral evidence.  Exts. B1 and B2 are marked on their side.  Heard the parties.

4.                The only question for determination is whether complainant is entitled for exchange of the garment at the original price and connected reliefs.

5.                The complainant bought the disputed jeans at a price of Rs. 1,680/-, availing discount at the rate of 30% as stated in the Ext. A1 bill.  Unfortunately, it was made unusable because of a torn in a conspicuous part of the garment.  Ext. A2 is the photograph produced in testimony of the said defect.  He made a complaint with the 1^st opposite party through electronic means.  Ext. A3 is a copy of the said communication.  Even though he received Ext. A4 reply  nothing substantial took place thereafter which has induced him to take the garment directly  to the shop for demanding exchange at original value. But he was disappointed by their reply when they told him that there was no exchange after the expiry of seven days after the purchase.  Obviously, Ext. A1 bill contains a stipulation entitling the customer for exchange provided it was done within seven days.  Undoubtedly the torn jeans was brought to the shop within seven days because the same has not been denied by 1^st opposite party.  In their version 2^nd opposite party also has indicated their willingness for exchange at the discount price. They also have no objection in paying the costs of litigation.

6.                Whereas there is consensus among  the parties for exchange, the only outstanding point for settlement is as to whether it must be on the original price or discount price.  We think that the complainant is entitled for exchange at the discount price of the jeans because he did shell out only that much of money. It is true that he has returned the garments within seven days of purchase.  Where the prayer of the complainant as such is allowed, it would amount to lending our support to complainant in enriching himself unduly out of the transaction.  That we think, is uncalled for, in this case, in the interest of justice.   As agreed by 2^nd opposite party, he is also  entitled for costs of litigation in the Forum.

7.                Consequently, the complaint is allowed as follows:

1.    Complainant is entitled for exchange of the disputed jeans with a fresh one of the same size, make and price of Rs. 1,680/-.

2.    Complainant shall return the disputed garment to 1^st opposite party at the time of exchange.

3.    Opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs. 500/- towards costs of litigation.       

          The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.             

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of December 2011